Share this story

Discussions about batteries often revolve around energy density. What we want is a battery that stores a whole lot of energy in a very tiny volume, preferably in a manner that doesn't involve explosions or fire. At the cutting edge of research, what we get are batteries that are a mix of amazing and amazingly bad.

Modern batteries are, quite frankly, a miracle compared to ye olde lead acid battery. Yet they still contain less energy per unit mass than the equivalent mass of wood. Essentially, we simply don’t pack enough atoms into a small enough volume to compete with hydrocarbons. But, now it seems that graphene—it’s always graphene—might help pack lithium in.

The invisible metal

Although there are many ways to make a lithium-ion battery, the chemistry boils down to the following: lithium is stored in some form at one electrode. The lithium is released as an ion, where it travels to another electrode and reacts. At the same time, the electrons that complete the reaction travel out into the world via one electrode, do some work, and end up at the other electrode, where they complete the reaction.

The key here is that the lithium is usually stored as a light and low-density lithium carbide. Finding materials that increase the density of lithium is one way to increase battery capacity.

Here is where battery research often runs into problems. Lithium is a very light element. Carbon, the other main constituent of a battery, is also a very light element. When viewed through an electron microscope, they look almost identical. That makes it very difficult to examine how lithium builds up at an electrode and makes it hard to see the variations in structures that it forms as it is stored (or how those structures come apart as it is removed).

It is worse than that, though. Electron microscopes usually use quite energetic electrons to create an image. The electrons have more than enough energy to knock carbon and lithium atoms out of the structure being examined. By the time you have created your image, you have destroyed the structure you imaged. Not ideal.

Enter a group of scientists with a transmission electron microscope that has been designed to work with low-energy electrons. The microscope still has sufficient resolution to see single atoms, so structures can be determined. By examining how much energy the electrons lose as they go through the sample, the researchers can also figure out the sample contents. Finally, the time it takes to gather the image is short enough (about one second) that the researchers can observe the build up and decay of structures as the battery is used.

A lithium sandwich

Since transmission electron microscopy requires that electrons pass through the sample, the carbon-lithium layer had to be very thin. The researchers chose to use a ribbon of a graphene double-layer (graphene is a single layer of graphene with the carbon atoms arranged in a honeycomb pattern). A blob of electrolyte-containing lithium ions was placed at one end of the graphene ribbon.

A series of electrodes were placed along the ribbon to measure and set voltages. The voltages were used to drive lithium into the ribbon and allow it to leave again. When lithium accumulates in the ribbon, the resistance drops, allowing a second set of electrodes to detect the presence of lithium.

The researchers don’t say it, but I think they were quite surprised by what happened. The lithium moves quite rapidly in the gap between the two graphene ribbons. On the scale of their graph, lithium appears between the electrodes instantly. From the movie, it looks like it takes about 14s to travel 50 micrometers, which I think is shockingly fast.

The amount of lithium is also pretty surprising. By examining the structure and elemental composition, the researchers found that the lithium was not forming a lithium carbide, as expected. Instead, it was forming multiple layers of crystalline lithium with only the outermost layer binding to the carbon. But the metallic lithium was not in its usual form. Instead, the lithium forms a high-density state that is normally found at low temperature or very high pressure.

Don’t get overexcited

This is quite interesting, and it may even prove useful. But not yet. For one thing, the high-density lithium only forms between two sheets of very nearly perfect graphene, not the sort of graphene that you can buy from a manufacturer. Indeed, near the edges of imperfections, the energy imparted by the electrons in the electron microscope was enough to boil off the lithium metal.

Even if we could get large amounts of high-quality, double-layer graphene sheets, there is no certainty that the lithium will diffuse as deeply as required during a charging cycle. It is pretty easy to imagine the first lithium ion building up in a clump that blocks the rest of the lithium from moving into the sandwich.

It is also not certain that the graphene survives the process for very long. This is one of the main problems with batteries involving metallic lithium: the electrodes destroy themselves over multiple cycles. We’ve no idea if graphene will last any longer than current electrode designs.

That said, the researchers are not presenting this as a battery-ready technology. Rather, it is an excellent example of how an experimental necessity has led to an interesting new set of observations that we will probably learn a lot from. And, if we are lucky, it will eventually help make batteries better.

Share this story

Chris Lee
Chris writes for Ars Technica's science section. A physicist by day and science writer by night, he specializes in quantum physics and optics. He Lives and works in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. Emailchris.lee@arstechnica.com

80 Reader Comments

The oxygen isn't a catalyst. It's a reactant and it's bringing plenty of potential energy to the table as well.

If you're going to be technically critical of a science writer, you might want to make sure your complaint is technically accurate itself.

Thanks for the correction. My intent was not to be critical of the writer but a wish that hydrocarbon fuel be more accurately represented when compared to chemical batteries

The energy is still in the bonds of the long chain hydrocarbons that form wood. There is no battery that has that level of energy density.

I don't have the software to check but I seem to recall that the change in element potential for the oxygen far outweighs the changes for both the hydrogen and carbon. But it's been a long time since I took reaction kinetics. And it's the reaction of oxygen with hydrogen that carries most of the work. So while there's some stored energy in the hydrocarbon bonds, it's the conversion of a double bond between oxygen atoms to two single bonds between H and O that's the majority of the energy release. But again, I'm more than a bit rusty.

It's the breakage of the C-C bonds that releases the most energy, especially if you're talking about alkenes (double-bonds between 2 or more Carbons) and alkynes (triple-bonds between 2 or more Carbons).(At least I thought)

Edit: Those stronger bonds are also, however, why it's harder to perfectly burn them, and you often end up with other crap as byproducts, like more soot and whatnot.

Will searching for Bi lithium sandwich get me thrown out of Starbucks?

Ha.If the apparent intelligence of the baristas at my local starbucks is representative, it'd probably get you a blank stare or an uncomfortable laugh, and then not-quiet-enough comments about "what a nerd that guy is," to the other employees, while they're mixing up your frappuccino.

The oxygen isn't a catalyst. It's a reactant and it's bringing plenty of potential energy to the table as well.

If you're going to be technically critical of a science writer, you might want to make sure your complaint is technically accurate itself.

Thanks for the correction. My intent was not to be critical of the writer but a wish that hydrocarbon fuel be more accurately represented when compared to chemical batteries

The energy is still in the bonds of the long chain hydrocarbons that form wood. There is no battery that has that level of energy density.

I don't have the software to check but I seem to recall that the change in element potential for the oxygen far outweighs the changes for both the hydrogen and carbon. But it's been a long time since I took reaction kinetics. And it's the reaction of oxygen with hydrogen that carries most of the work. So while there's some stored energy in the hydrocarbon bonds, it's the conversion of a double bond between oxygen atoms to two single bonds between H and O that's the majority of the energy release. But again, I'm more than a bit rusty.

The oxygen isn't a catalyst. It's a reactant and it's bringing plenty of potential energy to the table as well.

If you're going to be technically critical of a science writer, you might want to make sure your complaint is technically accurate itself.

Thanks for the correction. My intent was not to be critical of the writer but a wish that hydrocarbon fuel be more accurately represented when compared to chemical batteries

The energy is still in the bonds of the long chain hydrocarbons that form wood. There is no battery that has that level of energy density.

And you can bet every oil company on earth has been looking for a way to make hydrocarbon-fueled batteries a reality. Can you imagine the new heights of obscene profitability they'd soar to, if someone figured out a safe and economical way to turn long chain hydrocarbons directly into electricity without the intermediate stages in between (chemical->electrical, rather than chemical->thermal->mechanical->electrical)?

I can only assume, however, that the most likely byproducts of that would be carbon dioxide and water, as that's what happens with perfect combustion of a hydrocarbon, so I kind of hope this never does happen.

Edit: On second thought, maybe I do hope this happens, as skipping the intermediate changes almost certainly means a dramatic increase in efficiency, meaning that the ICE could finally die a long-overdue death without changing our deeply-entrenched fuel distribution infrastructure.

You must be talking about Asphalt Lithium Batteries. The asphalt was supposed to have five minute charging cycles, have thousands of recharges with minimal degradation, and it was going to be cheap to manufacture. The idea was the asphalt provided an environment that prevented the lithium from growing dendrites during the recharge phase that eventually short out normal lithium batteries.

The oxygen isn't a catalyst. It's a reactant and it's bringing plenty of potential energy to the table as well.

If you're going to be technically critical of a science writer, you might want to make sure your complaint is technically accurate itself.

Thanks for the correction. My intent was not to be critical of the writer but a wish that hydrocarbon fuel be more accurately represented when compared to chemical batteries

The energy is still in the bonds of the long chain hydrocarbons that form wood. There is no battery that has that level of energy density.

I don't have the software to check but I seem to recall that the change in element potential for the oxygen far outweighs the changes for both the hydrogen and carbon. But it's been a long time since I took reaction kinetics. And it's the reaction of oxygen with hydrogen that carries most of the work. So while there's some stored energy in the hydrocarbon bonds, it's the conversion of a double bond between oxygen atoms to two single bonds between H and O that's the majority of the energy release. But again, I'm more than a bit rusty.

CH4 is 1640kJ and O2 is 980kJ

kJ per kg or per mol? What reference atoms are you using?

Also, keep in mind, there are 3 2 O2 molecules required to oxidize each CH4 molecule. So that's 96 kg oxidizer to 18 kg methane. Also, as per your numbers, the oxygen is bringing in 2,940 1,960 kJ vs the 1640 for methane assuming your numbers are per mol.

"Yet they still contain less energy per unit mass than the equivalent mass of wood. Essentially, we simply don’t pack enough atoms into a small enough volume to compete with hydrocarbons."

I wish that when authors talk about this they at least make the concession that hydrocarbons benefit from a critical catalyst (oxygen) being anywhere the hydrocarbon fuel needs to be used.

To me it seems import when comparing to batteries who density includes whatever catalyst its particular chemistry requires.

Why? Metal-air batteries do exist, and they do have significantly higher specific energies than standard sealed cells, of course they do have the perverse behavior of getting heavier as their energy is consumed.

The oxygen isn't a catalyst. It's a reactant and it's bringing plenty of potential energy to the table as well.

If you're going to be technically critical of a science writer, you might want to make sure your complaint is technically accurate itself.

Thanks for the correction. My intent was not to be critical of the writer but a wish that hydrocarbon fuel be more accurately represented when compared to chemical batteries

The energy is still in the bonds of the long chain hydrocarbons that form wood. There is no battery that has that level of energy density.

I don't have the software to check but I seem to recall that the change in element potential for the oxygen far outweighs the changes for both the hydrogen and carbon. But it's been a long time since I took reaction kinetics. And it's the reaction of oxygen with hydrogen that carries most of the work. So while there's some stored energy in the hydrocarbon bonds, it's the conversion of a double bond between oxygen atoms to two single bonds between H and O that's the majority of the energy release. But again, I'm more than a bit rusty.

CH4 is 1640kJ and O2 is 980kJ

kJ per kg or per mol? What reference atoms are you using?

Also, keep in mind, there are 3 O2 molecules required to oxidize each CH4 molecule. So that's 96 kg oxidizer to 18 kg methane. Also, as per your numbers, the oxygen is bringing in 2,940 kJ vs the 1640 for methane assuming your numbers are per mol.

Err no

Breaking all the bonds in CH4 will give you 1640kJ/mol breaking 2O2 bonds will give 980kJ/mol.

Also, keep in mind, there are 3 O2 molecules required to oxidize each CH4 molecule. [...]

Out of curiosity - can we isolate a single CH4 molecule and 3 O2 and observe the set of intermediate reactions? /inside a sufficiently small reaction chamber/

They probably wouldn't react. The intermediate products are highly energetic enough that they'd fly apart from one another. However, we know the exact pathways, reaction rates, etc. for such a simple system.

The oxygen isn't a catalyst. It's a reactant and it's bringing plenty of potential energy to the table as well.

If you're going to be technically critical of a science writer, you might want to make sure your complaint is technically accurate itself.

Thanks for the correction. My intent was not to be critical of the writer but a wish that hydrocarbon fuel be more accurately represented when compared to chemical batteries

The energy is still in the bonds of the long chain hydrocarbons that form wood. There is no battery that has that level of energy density.

Unless you are talking about a log of acetylene you are mistaken.

Gasoline, wood, coal etc has a high energy density because you leaving out the implicit other half of the reactants - oxygen in the air. A high explosive has less energy density than wood because it carries its own oxygen along in every molecule. OTOH, that also lets it "burn" a lot faster than wood. Most batteries are sealed systems so suffer the same problem. Some batteries use free oxygen in air to react with a metal like zinc, aluminum, or lithium. These enjoy an energy density bonus but aren't rechargeable in the conventional sense.

New rule: no new articles on theoretical batteries. Working prototype at useful scale or GTFO.

Battery chemistry have become the new (and were the old), "this one weird trick with faster switching semiconductors" clickbait articles (hell we even have double points for "graphene") and false futurist predictions for 2 decades now. Leave that stuff in the journals for the experts. They are of negative value to the general and even science oriented public.

Being, as I am, furiously working hard to edit another book to get out before the end of the year, believe me when I say this kind of mistake is pretty simple to make, and actually pretty hard to catch unless someone ELSE has eyes on it.

Chris probably proofed it and filled in the missing word automatically as he went. IKR there...

On that nit-picking note:

Quote:

For on thing, the high-density lithium only forms between two sheets of very nearly perfect graphene, not the sort of graphene that you can buy from a manufacturer.

Editing sucks, Chris. I get that. Believe me, I get that.

But an interesting article.

From the sound of the article, there seems to be a push in battery research to mate graphene with lithium, but as with all beyond the bleeding edge research, it's not a done deal, and needs more work to see if it's a viable new tech.

The oxygen isn't a catalyst. It's a reactant and it's bringing plenty of potential energy to the table as well.

If you're going to be technically critical of a science writer, you might want to make sure your complaint is technically accurate itself.

Thanks for the correction. My intent was not to be critical of the writer but a wish that hydrocarbon fuel be more accurately represented when compared to chemical batteries

The energy is still in the bonds of the long chain hydrocarbons that form wood. There is no battery that has that level of energy density.

Unless you are talking about a log of acetylene you are mistaken.

Gasoline, wood, coal etc has a high energy density because you leaving out the implicit other half of the reactants - oxygen in the air. A high explosive has less energy density than wood because it carries its own oxygen along in every molecule. OTOH, that also lets it "burn" a lot faster than wood. Most batteries are sealed systems so suffer the same problem. Some batteries use free oxygen in air to react with a metal like zinc, aluminum, or lithium. These enjoy an energy density bonus but aren't rechargeable in the conventional sense.

Wood is made of protein which in the case of wood are made up from polypeptides. C5H9O3N is the most common unit. That contains more energy per mole than O2

Wood is a composite. While there is some protein in wood it is mostly cellulosic carbohydrates (the fiber). The other main component is lignin which is cross linked phenolic resins (the matrix). Not much protein there at all.

Being, as I am, furiously working hard to edit another book to get out before the end of the year, believe me when I say this kind of mistake is pretty simple to make, and actually pretty hard to catch unless someone ELSE has eyes on it.

Chris probably proofed it and filled in the missing word automatically as he went. IKR there...

I read the article, read the comments, thought "oh that's a funny error that he fixed pretty quick", looked up and yeah, he has... no, wait, try harder to actually read every letter... nope, the word is definitely missing.

So I'd invented the missing word and *continued* inventing it even when I was actively looking for the hole.

I read the article, read the comments, thought "oh that's a funny error that he fixed pretty quick", looked up and yeah, he has... no, wait, try harder to actually read every letter... nope, the word is definitely missing.

So I'd invented the missing word and *continued* inventing it even when I was actively looking for the hole.

Branch prediction done by the mother nature (our brains).

Still prone to all kind of failure modes. This being one of them. One other I can think off is word substitution based on similarity or rhyme.

The oxygen isn't a catalyst. It's a reactant and it's bringing plenty of potential energy to the table as well.

If you're going to be technically critical of a science writer, you might want to make sure your complaint is technically accurate itself.

Thanks for the correction. My intent was not to be critical of the writer but a wish that hydrocarbon fuel be more accurately represented when compared to chemical batteries

The energy is still in the bonds of the long chain hydrocarbons that form wood. There is no battery that has that level of energy density.

Unless you are talking about a log of acetylene you are mistaken.

Gasoline, wood, coal etc has a high energy density because you leaving out the implicit other half of the reactants - oxygen in the air. A high explosive has less energy density than wood because it carries its own oxygen along in every molecule. OTOH, that also lets it "burn" a lot faster than wood. Most batteries are sealed systems so suffer the same problem. Some batteries use free oxygen in air to react with a metal like zinc, aluminum, or lithium. These enjoy an energy density bonus but aren't rechargeable in the conventional sense.

Wood is made of protein which in the case of wood are made up from polypeptides. C5H9O3N is the most common unit. That contains more energy per mole than O2

Even spotting you that said protein is a large component of wood (which it's not), who cares what the energy per mol is? I mean, n-icosahectane (C120H242) would have a WAY higher heating value than methane - but methane is a far preferable fuel for everything. You're forgetting that a single molecule of the polypeptide you gave above has to react with 11.5 atoms of oxygen - or 5.5 molecules' worth. And that's ignoring any oxidizing reaction of the nitrogen. In order to burn one mole of that polypeptide you're not just consuming one mole of oxygen. You're consuming more than 5.

So sure, that molecule has more internal energy per mol but not per kg or per liter than other compounds.

The way you get the energy is by rearranging the pieces afterwards in a way that takes the oxidation number of all the applicable oxygen atoms involved from 0 to -2 where it feels more at home.

As far as I know, saturated hydrocarbons tend to be great fuels because they make for a very effective way to pack hydrogen. Diesel oil contains more hydrogen per unit volume than liquid hydrogen would. The energy output from burning the carbon barely covers the energy cost of breaking up the hydrocarbon molecule, most of the energy usable for work comes from burning the hydrogen.

If I'm understanding correctly, the 2017 article was reviewing a paper that was about this technique potentially working as a way to increase lithium density. But this article is reviewing a paper that dives in deeper and figures out a lot more about what is going on with the atoms when this technique is used. And it isn't what we expected to find.

Ok.That's what I'm arriving at, too, after re-reading both.Would have been nice to mention that in the article - that this is based on a paper that is a deeper analysis of something that was already hypothesized.

That is wrong. I would reasonably expect the paper itself to reference other papers that lead to their research. The goal is to provide specialized knowledge to specialists in the field.

I would not expect or even want that replicated in the reporting, it would be boring. The reporting needs to serve as a bite sized self contained item. The goal is to provide general knowledge to non specialists. Maybe it references other articles, maybe not. Separate audiences, separate needs.

On Ars I expect that the related stories tab below functions a bit like you describe. But I would not cry if it misses some previous article. Oh look, it does! It links to other graphene articles!

The way you get the energy is by rearranging the pieces afterwards in a way that takes the oxidation number of all the applicable oxygen atoms involved from 0 to -2 where it feels more at home.

As far as I know, saturated hydrocarbons tend to be great fuels because they make for a very effective way to pack hydrogen. Diesel oil contains more hydrogen per unit volume than liquid hydrogen would. The energy output from burning the carbon barely covers the energy cost of breaking up the hydrocarbon molecule, most of the energy usable for work comes from burning the hydrogen.

It seems like we've heard of a number of interesting new potential battery technologies over the last few years, at various stages in the research & development pipeline. Just off the top of my head there's this graphine stuff, there's Asphalt, Glass, Plastic, just to name a few.

This episode of NOVA covered a bunch of this, but is close to 2 years old now. It would be cool to see some kind of current rundown of the various different approaches, and where they are at. Even if it was some kind of infographic with the tech, what in theory it might offer, where it's currently at and when we might see it in the general marketplace.

It seems like we've heard of a number of interesting new potential battery technologies over the last few years, at various stages in the research & development pipeline. Just off the top of my head there's this graphine stuff, there's Asphalt, Glass, Plastic, just to name a few.

This episode of NOVA covered a bunch of this, but is close to 2 years old now. It would be cool to see some kind of current rundown of the various different approaches, and where they are at. Even if it was some kind of infographic with the tech, what in theory it might offer, where it's currently at and when we might see it in the general marketplace.

The way you get the energy is by rearranging the pieces afterwards in a way that takes the oxidation number of all the applicable oxygen atoms involved from 0 to -2 where it feels more at home.

As far as I know, saturated hydrocarbons tend to be great fuels because they make for a very effective way to pack hydrogen. Diesel oil contains more hydrogen per unit volume than liquid hydrogen would. The energy output from burning the carbon barely covers the energy cost of breaking up the hydrocarbon molecule, most of the energy usable for work comes from burning the hydrogen.

Oh for fuck sake that's the fucking energy of the bond.

It is the bond enthalpy, which is another way of saying that that is the energy released when the four C-H bonds were formed.

I read the article, read the comments, thought "oh that's a funny error that he fixed pretty quick", looked up and yeah, he has... no, wait, try harder to actually read every letter... nope, the word is definitely missing.

So I'd invented the missing word and *continued* inventing it even when I was actively looking for the hole.

Branch prediction done by the mother nature (our brains).

Still prone to all kind of failure modes. This being one of them. One other I can think off is word substitution based on similarity or rhyme.

For me it's a matter of scale. This article is probably in the 1000 word long region. My books are typically 80-130 times longer. And yes, a word by word review is necessary - multiple times (with about a 2 week break in between to forget the details enough to pick out the details).

I get branch failure mode - in spades... And yet, I keep on doing it.

It's a disease I have called Amor Scripturam. There's no cure.

This, of course, has nothing to do with new battery research involving lithium and graphene, but hey, I feel their pain when other writers miss things like this when they write stuff about these things. The upside is that for a Chris Lee article, it was pretty easy to follow.

This about using their low energy electron microscope to actually make movies of the lithium moving during the process.

To see how any system actually behaves might well trigger some scientist's next 'ah-ha' moment. They are notoriously hard to force. Movies, and stills, of things one cannot normally perceive will always be a great scientific tool.

Look into the progress that has been made since we started learning the actual shape of various cells in the human body, and its myriad attackers as in bacteria and their virus buddies.

I read the article, read the comments, thought "oh that's a funny error that he fixed pretty quick", looked up and yeah, he has... no, wait, try harder to actually read every letter... nope, the word is definitely missing.

So I'd invented the missing word and *continued* inventing it even when I was actively looking for the hole.

Branch prediction done by the mother nature (our brains).

Still prone to all kind of failure modes. This being one of them. One other I can think off is word substitution based on similarity or rhyme.

For me it's a matter of scale. This article is probably in the 1000 word long region. My books are typically 80-130 times longer. And yes, a word by word review is necessary - multiple times (with about a 2 week break in between to forget the details enough to pick out the details).

I get branch failure mode - in spades... And yet, I keep on doing it.

It's a disease I have called Amor Scripturam. There's no cure.

This, of course, has nothing to do with new battery research involving lithium and graphene, but hey, I feel their pain when other writers miss things like this when they write stuff about these things. The upside is that for a Chris Lee article, it was pretty easy to follow.

Dumb question, but would it help to pass your text through a translation service (and back) to look for sections where the words don't say what you think they say? Better, if you speak another language fluently, just go to that language. My thinking is that your brain won't be pre-programmed with the expected word order that's coming off the page.

would love anything that blocks formation of bad stuff at the electrodes. lith-batts seem... good enough for an all-electricity land transportation system, especially if they could get them to last longer. those solid lith-batt technologies (remember the video of a guy cutting through a battery pack with pair of scissors while it was still keeping a light bulb lit, without any magic smoke?) seem to be pretty far along on that path, i.e., blocking dendritic accumulation at the electrodes. this tech started out looking like it would get there too, but no punchline.

"Battery scientists have a metric called maximum theoretical specific energy; you can read about the definition in Advanced Batteries by Robert Huggins. [ https://books.google.com/books?id=atEOt ... se&f=false ]Right now, the most energy dense batteries you can buy are lithium ion, which are in the 100-200 Wh/kg range. I don't know what the best battery is, but later in the book, Huggins shows calculations that indicate that Li/CuCl2 cells have an MTSE of 1166.4 Wh/kg. (5x the capacity of current batteries!)

We know that the highest MTSE is at least 1166.4 Wh/kg; you could use his method to calculate the same value for other chemistries, but the search space is pretty large.

I've also seen references on the internet to Li/O2 and Al/O2 batteries with MTSE of 2815 and 5200 Wh/kg, respectively. Not sure how credible those references are. Later references, like this 2008 article in the Journal of the Electrochemical Society, suggest that the MTSE for a Li/O2 cell is around 1400 Wh/kg."

****

In the past, I've read somewhere between 1500 and 3000 whr/kg as maximum potential for Li Ion batteries. We have a ways to go.

Edit: &^*)^*)*& spell checker and add the link that did not originally appear here.

The way you get the energy is by rearranging the pieces afterwards in a way that takes the oxidation number of all the applicable oxygen atoms involved from 0 to -2 where it feels more at home.

As far as I know, saturated hydrocarbons tend to be great fuels because they make for a very effective way to pack hydrogen. Diesel oil contains more hydrogen per unit volume than liquid hydrogen would. The energy output from burning the carbon barely covers the energy cost of breaking up the hydrocarbon molecule, most of the energy usable for work comes from burning the hydrogen.

I read the article, read the comments, thought "oh that's a funny error that he fixed pretty quick", looked up and yeah, he has... no, wait, try harder to actually read every letter... nope, the word is definitely missing.

So I'd invented the missing word and *continued* inventing it even when I was actively looking for the hole.

Branch prediction done by the mother nature (our brains).

Still prone to all kind of failure modes. This being one of them. One other I can think off is word substitution based on similarity or rhyme.